Main menu

You are here

Sorting apps, and linking to external content

Submitted by Matt on 30 November, 2010

I had a few suggestions:
1. Can we allow the application results to be sorted, or to have a label if they are compatible with Voice Over? It would make it much easier to avoid reading about applications that are not accessible.
2. Is it possible for us to create a category for external content? Specifically, providing direct links to app reviews on other sites, product reviews, and podcasts that address apple accessibility/voice over issues.
Thank You.

Forum:

User Options

The problem with flagging apps as being accessible or not is that this can be quite subjective. This issue has been discussed elsewhere, and it seems that some people will tolerate certain accessibility issues (more usually things such as poor button labelling), whilst others will regard the app as inaccessible. Of the apps that I have used, I would say that about 25% could conclusively be described as accassible or inaccessible. However, the rest were probably less clearcut, and could be used if you were willing to deal with their problems.

As for your suggestion of links to external reviews. do you mean an additional field for each app submitted to the App Directory? Or are you talking about something totally separate?

David,
Thanks for listening to the new guy. Concerning external content, I am referring to something totally different. Currently, AppleVis provides links to a website, but what if we could go beyond that model and provide links to specific content on those sites. On Blind Cool Tech, for example, I have listened to many reviews of apple products that we could link to directly (making sure to give credit to the author and website). In a way, I guess that I'm imagining a kind of filter for gathering articles and resources from other sites, and posting them to AppleViss. Kind of like a LifeHacker.com where tech articles are sometimes distributed and linked to from other sites. If we allow the site users to submit what they find then this may have less burden on admins who just have to approve the content as opposed to locating it.
Thanks,
Matt

Hi David,
Bumping a somewhat old thread here I know, but something like inspiration just struck.
What if the overall classification of an app was worded as being related to usability instead of accessibility? My thinking is that the sliding scale of usability is less subjective than actual accessibility. To keep things clear cut and keep the lable serving its intended purpose for the label, I'd suggest 3 sweeping choices as follows:
1. Perfectly usable: every feature of the app can be used.
2. Partially usable: some features can, but some can't.
3. Utterly unusable: the current version is of use to neither man nore beast, presuming that said beast relies on assistive technology of course.
Remember that the above scale relates to overall usability and only serves as a quick indication of what to expect, like a headline accompanying the app title if you will. It would need to be made clear on the submission form how this differs from the existing choices related to accessibility.
Does that make the idea any more appealing?
Scott

I can certainly see some value in this. I would probably look at adding it to what is already present, rather than have it replace any of the existing fields. One concern, however, is not wanting to add too much 'weight' to the app submission process. The fear is that asking people to provide too much information might only put them off the whole idea.

For my 2 cents, I like the idea, I for example would like to be able the more quickly spot inaccessible or poorly accessible apps I'm interested in to send the developers emails suggesting/requesting VO compatibility.

Hi David,
Yeah, I was imagining this label as an addition to rather than a replacement for any of the existing fields.
I understand why you're keen to keep the submission process quick and easy, it's a comunity driven site after all. Choosing an option from one extra combo box surely won't be a dealbreaker, considering how much more productive the experience of browsing for new apps would be for all users. Hopefully a few of the regular contributors will notice this thread and chime in to confirm this.
Cheers
Scott

I like the idea of tagging apps with the level of accessibility. Sometimes partial accessibility is acceptable, as long as the key features are usable. Everyone's needs and/or proficiency is different, thus some might not mind or care about an "About" button not being labeled. Others might not want to touch an app that doesn't have all buttons clearly labled, necessary or not.